Jump to content

San Jose insanity


Yettiblood
 Share

Recommended Posts

...

Tuesday evening, the San Jose city council voted to approve a proposal that will require all gun owners citywide to carry liability insurance, and to pay an annual fee that would go toward supporting emergency and police services.

...

In Sacramento, the Firearms Policy Coalition, which advocates for gun rights, says it's already preparing to take legal action against the city. Mayor Liccardo says city attorneys will be ready for any challenges.

...

Up next, voting liability insurance, which pays out if the people elected do something stupid. That should make people vote more wisely. Yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello? California FireArms Insurance Company.. Pelosi, Newsome,Cheatum, and Howe...

Yes.. I was shot and I would like to make a claim against the brave and vibrant Valedictorian that committed this act.

 

Well..unfortunately Mr Wonderful does not carry any insurance.

Therefore...go pound sand.

And that we now have this incident on record we have assessed that you obviously participate in high risk behavior like going shopping or standing on a sidewalk while displaying antagonizing privilege. Therefore for this reason, and for attempting to file a claim, your premium will go up 347%.

Please pay in full within 36 hours or we will send authorities to your home to collect all firearm related contraband.

Have a nice day.

(click..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there even any insurance companies that sell such liability insurance.

it would be just like CA to mandate you but a product that doesn’t exist or exist at a reasonable price.

 

“No of course we didn’t ban private ownership of firearms. It isn’t our fault insurance companies are behind the times.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when the housing bubble popped and the country was full of foreclosures, asset managers nationwide were hiring private contractors to secure, repair and rehab empty bank owned properties. Of course cozy deals with the feds and asset management companies secured lucrative deals. Well, it seems that special insurance was to be required for contractors doing work for the lenders. One of the biggest insurer was based out of New Jersey, and I believe the CEO was the brother of the CEO of one of the asset management firms.

If you wanted to get work thru them, you had to get insurance thru them. Nothing your own insurance agent could write up would suffice.

I expect if San Jose requires gun owners to procure insurance, the likes of which doesn't currently exist, someone will step forward with the encouragement of the powers that be. They will write it up, price it up and make sure it is lucrative and almost proprietary in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there even any insurance companies that sell such liability insurance.

 

it would be just like CA to mandate you but a product that doesn’t exist or exist at a reasonable price.

 

“No of course we didn’t ban private ownership of firearms. It isn’t our fault insurance companies are behind the times.”

I think they would have to join USCCA or something similar, which is insane simply to own a firearm you keep at home. The don't say what kind of "liability" you have to cover. I wouldn't put it past them to make you responsible if some scumbag breaks into your home, steals your firearm and commits a crime with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I expect if San Jose requires gun owners to procure insurance, the likes of which doesn't currently exist, someone will step forward with the encouragement of the powers that be. They will write it up, price it up and make sure it is lucrative and almost proprietary in nature.

Hmm, "San Jose Liability and Casualty Company, Inc., Mayor Sam Liccardo, president?" Insuring gun owners since 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We've got to do more to ensure that burdens are property borne by those who choose to exercise their right to own a gun and to ensure that those fees and insurance requirements will incentivize safer gun ownership," said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.“

 

Can anybody translate this gibberish for me. Sounds like a business venture for sociopaths. I get confused easily though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We've got to do more to ensure that burdens are property borne by those who choose to exercise their right to own a gun and to ensure that those fees and insurance requirements will incentivize safer gun ownership," said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.“

 

Can anybody translate this gibberish for me. Sounds like a business venture for sociopaths. I get confused easily though.

I believe it becomes "You should pay for someone else's crimes, because I don't like you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have gun owner insurance through my homeowners policy. It's pretty common and basically free. It only covers loss. I imagine the liability part of the same policy covers any accidents, an accidental shooting by me in my home. It would never cover a crime shooting with my stolen gun.

 

No insurance policy ever will.

 

I'd guess the new San Jose law will not stand very long.

Edited by soundguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... It would never cover a crime shooting with my stolen gun.

...

But does your policy cover your liability to your victims if you commit crimes with your guns?

 

More generally, no insurance will ever cover the perpetrator of a crime, because US law would interpret that as the criminal benefiting from his crime. Insurance can cover negligence or accident, but not malice. I'm fairly sure that's why the law won't stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... It would never cover a crime shooting with my stolen gun.

...

But does your policy cover your liability to your victims if you commit crimes with your guns?

 

More generally, no insurance will ever cover the perpetrator of a crime, because US law would interpret that as the criminal benefiting from his crime. Insurance can cover negligence or accident, but not malice. I'm fairly sure that's why the law won't stand.

 

 

Of course not... it goes without saying!

No insurance policy ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant wait for crapcago and the rest of Illinois to try and implement this, you know it's coming!

Illinois Marxists/communists D party will get a tingle up their legs when they hear about it.

 

I didn't see the details on how they expect to enforce this.

Other then close the gun shops this will do little else.

I think if the police encounter someone with a firearm then they will have to provide proof of compliance,according to this article.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a gun grab. It's also a registry.

 

The mayor said on CNN that he's (paraphrased) targeting law abiding gun owners. When someone call the police for a domestic issue the dispatcher will ask if there's gun in the house. If you answer yes, but the city hasn't taxed you and there's no insurance paperwork as mandated then you're no longer law abiding and the police can sieze the guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun Owners of America

Sam Paredes, Gun Owners of California's Executive Director made the following statement on the City of San Jose's mandate for gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay a fee to cover taxpayers' costs associated with gun violence.

 

"There are so many things wrong with this that it's tough to know where to begin," said Paredes. "Can residents of San Jose expect a door-to-door check from city inspectors asking about guns in the home? This sounds more like pre-World War II Poland than the United States."

 

California's preemption law prohibits local authorities from passing gun control ordinances and regulations, reserving that subject matter to the state, and preventing a disparate patchwork of laws throughout California.

 

"Requiring someone to carry liability insurance for participating in a Constitutionally guaranteed right such as the 2nd Amendment is no different than steamrolling the 1st Amendment by mandating the media carry such insurance," said Paredes. "And, to expect lawful San Jose gun owners to pay a fee -- to be held financially responsible to cover the damages caused by criminals is absolutely shameful."

 

Constitutional attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. And Andrew M. Grossman wrote on the issue of firearm insurance mandates:

 

The courts, however, are no more likely to allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than to undermine the First. A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink -- the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...